Three-dimensional virtual bone bank system workflow for structural bone allograft selection: a technical report

Structural bone allograft has been used in bone defect reconstruction during the last fifty years with acceptable results. However, allograft selection methods were based on 2-dimensional templates using X-rays.Thanks to preoperative planning platforms, three dimensional (3D) CT-derived bone models were used to define size and shape comparison between host and donor. The purpose of this study was to describe the workflow of this virtual technique in order to explain how to choose the best allograft using a virtualbone bank system. We measured all bones in a 3D virtual environment determining the best match. The use of a virtual bone banksystem has allowed optimizing the allograft selection in a bone bank, providing more information to the surgeons before surgery.In conclusion, 3D preoperative planning in a virtual environment for allograft selection is an important and helpful tool in order to achieve a good match between host and donor.Fil: Ritacco, Lucas. Hospital Italiano; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Farfalli, Germán Luis. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Milano, Federico Edgardo. Hospital Italiano; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Ayerza, Miguel Ángel. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Muscolo, Domingo L.. Hospital Italiano; Argentina. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Aponte Tinao, Luis. Hospital Italiano; Argentin

Postoperative assessment in computer assisted selection of femur osteoarticular allograft

El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fue comparar dos grupos de pacientes tratados con trasplantes osteoarticulares del fémur distal en términos de: 1) el volumen del fémur distal del receptor y del trasplante, 2) la superficie articular de contacto del fémur distal del receptor y del trasplante, 3) el ángulo del valgo anatómico femoral del fémur distal del receptor y del trasplante. Material y métodos: se realizó una búsqueda retrospectiva entre 2002 y 2012 analizando a pacientes tratados con un trasplante osteoarticular de fémur distal. Se incluyó un total de 32 pacientes. Estos fueron divididos en dos grupos de acuerdo con el método de selección del trasplante: Grupo 1, conformado por 16 pacientes con trasplantes seleccionados mediante 2D (tomografía) y Grupo 2, 16 pacientes con trasplantes seleccionados a través de un método 3D. La evaluación fue realizada por un observador independiente y ciego para los dos grupos. Resultados: las diferencias en las pruebas de estimación de volumen y superficie articulares entre el donante y el receptor no fueron estadísticamente significativas (p>0,05). Sin embargo, la diferencia entre los ángulos de valgo del fémur receptor y el fémur donante, seleccionados por el método 2D fue significativa (p0,05). Conclusión: el método de relación de un donante con un banco de huesos virtual luego de resección y reconstrucción con un aloinjerto osteoarticular permite obtener una mejor alineación particular que aquellos seleccionados solo con un método bidimensional.The aim of our study was to compare two groups of patients treated with distal femur osteoarticular allograft in terms of: 1) the volume of the distal femur of the allograft and patient, 2) the articular surface contact, 3) the anatomical femoral valgus angle. Material and methods: a retrospective review was performed between 2002 and 2012 and all patients with an osteo-articular allograft of the distal femur were analysed. A total of 32 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the selection method of the allograft: Group 1, 16 patients with allograft selected by 2D (CT) and Group 2, 16 patients selected through a 3D method. The evaluation was done by an independent and blind observer. Results: the differences in terms of volume estimation and joint surface contact between the donor allograft and patient distal femur were not statistically significant (p>0.05). However, the difference between the valgus angle showed significant differences between donor and patient femurs selected by the 2D method (p0.05). Conclusion: the 3D method for allograft selection of the distal femur showed better results in limb alignment compared to 2D selection method.Fil: Milano, Federico Edgardo. Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Albergo, José Ignacio. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Farfalli, Germán Luis. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Aponte Tinao, Luis Alberto. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Ayerza, Miguel Angel. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Muscolo, Domingo L.. Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Ritacco, Lucas Eduardo. Hospital Italiano; Argentin

Clinical and functional outcomes of tibial intercalary allograft reconstructions

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival, the complications and the functional outcome of intercalary tibial allografts reconstructions following tumor resections. Methods Intercalary tibia segmental allografts were implanted in 26 consecutive patients after segmental resections. Average follow-up was 6 years. Allograft survival was determined with the Kaplan-Meier method. Function was evaluated with the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system (MSTS). Results The rate of survival was 84% (CI 95%: 90%- 70%) at 5 years and 79% at 10 years (CI 95%: 95%-63%). Allografts were removed in 5 patients (3 due to infections and 2 due to local recurrences). Two patients showed diaphyseal nonunion and 3 had an incomplete fracture, but it was not necessary to remove the allografts. Average MSTS functional score was 29 points (range 27 to 30). Conclusions Despite the incidence of complications, this analysis showed an acceptable survival with excellent functional scores. The use of intercalary allograft clearly has a place in the reconstruction of a segmental defect created by the resection of a tumor in the diaphyseal and/or metaphyseal portion of the tibia

Failure rates and functional results for intercalary femur reconstructions after tumour resection

Purpose To compare the results for patients treated with intercalary endoprosthetic replacement (EPR) or intercalary allograft reconstruction for diaphyseal tumours of the femur in terms of: (1) reconstruction failure rates; (2) cause of failure; (3) risk of amputation of the limb; and (4) functional result. Methods Patients with bone sarcomas of the femoral diaphysis, treated with en bloc resection and reconstructed with an intercalary EPR or allograft, were reviewed. A total of 107 patients were included in the study (36 EPR and 71 intercalary allograft reconstruction). No differences were found between the two groups in terms of follow-up, age, gender and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Results The probability of failure for intercalary EPR was 36% at 5 years and 22% for allograft at 5 years (p = 0.26). Mechanical failures were the most prevalent in both types of reconstruction. Aseptic loosening and implant fracture are the main cause in the EPR group. For intercalary allograft reconstructions, fracture followed by nonunion was the most common complication. Ten-year risk of amputation after failure for both reconstructions was 3%. There were no differences between the groups in terms of the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score (27.4, range 16–30 vs. 27.6, range 17–30). Conclusions We have demonstrated similar failure rates for both reconstructions. In both techniques, mechanical failure was the most common complication with a low rate of limb amputation and good functional results.Fil: Albergo, J. I.. Instituto Universidad Escuela de Medicina del Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Gaston, L. C.. Royal Orthopaedic Hospital; Reino UnidoFil: Farfalli, Germán Luis. Instituto Universidad Escuela de Medicina del Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Laitinen, M.. Helsinki University Central Hospital; Finlandia. Royal Orthopaedic Hospital; Reino UnidoFil: Parry, M.. Royal Orthopaedic Hospital; Reino UnidoFil: Ayerza, M. A.. Instituto Universidad Escuela de Medicina del Hospital Italiano; ArgentinaFil: Risk, Marcelo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas. Oficina de Coordinacion Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica. - Hospital Italiano. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica. - Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Medicina Traslacional E Ingenieria Biomedica.; ArgentinaFil: Jeys, L. M.. Royal Orthopaedic Hospital; Reino UnidoFil: Aponte Tinao, L. A.. Instituto Universidad Escuela de Medicina del Hospital Italiano; Argentin